This morning, I received the following email from Lee Cameron, executive director of the Economic Development Corporation in Freeport, Texas, and the site of the Western Seafood eminent domain case. Mr. Cameron, writing from a government email account paid for by tax dollars, writes:

You probably don't care but I am going to tell you anyway. Carla Main's book is a work of fiction. The truth did not fit her purpose so she eagerly accepted the spoon fed version given her by Wright Gore. Gore is a master manipulator and has been the antagonist from day one. Thre would have been no eminent domain proceedings in Freeport if he had not attempted to stop the development. The Gore family considers the river as their private property and their attack on Freeport is all about greed and power. It's as simple as that.

Lee Cameron

Well, the public can read Ms. Main's excellent book and judge for themselves whether it is family business owner Wright Gore--or ambitious bureaucrat Lee Cameron--who is really "all about greed and power."

(I tried responding to Mr. Cameron's email, by the way, but he had blocked me.)

The Institute for Justice has prepared an important analysis of California's Proposition 99, the eminent domain initiative sponsored by an alliance of government agencies. You can read it here. IJ concludes,

Prop 99 will provide insubstantial protection against the use of eminent domain for private commercial development. Small business owners will continue to lose not only their buildings, but also their incomes. All farmers and working class renters are at risk. Homeowners may not even be protected. Californians require real, substantive reform for everyone and Prop 99 does not come close to providing it.

Here's an article by University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein on the awful Didden v. Port Chester case which the Supreme Court declined to hear last year. Here's the brief that Pacific Legal Foundation filed in that case. Excerpt:

[O]ur Supreme Court remains on a constitutional holiday. Over and over the justices blithely assume that conscientious planners acting in good faith are entitled to ample discretion in allocating the costs and benefits of our social life. Sounds great on paper, but the sorry saga of Port Chester shows that when it comes to real estate, we have a government not of laws but of politicians. In matters that they really care about, like race and free speech, judges are quite capable of seeing through airy abstractions to harsh realities. Why can't they do the same for property rights?

The City of Arnold, Missouri, has issued a press release on city letterhead attacking Homer and Julie Tourkakis for daring to defend themselves in the courts when the city decided to condemn their property. You can read that abusive press release here. Today, the city sent this press release by mail to every voter in the city.

In response, I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Jefferson (MO) County Journal:

Dear Editor,

It is a sad day when elected officials not only wield their power to seize the property of law-abiding citizens, but also take the time to denigrate them in public with press releases written and published on the taxpayer's dime. But this is just what the City of Arnold has chosen to do in a press release which it mailed to every voter in the City (at taxpayer expense), and in a recent story in this paper. In these statements, the City has called Homer Tourkakis a liar and accused him of various wrongful acts in seeking to defend his property from the city’s use of eminent domain.

Let us get the facts right. The City decided to take away Dr. Tourkakis's dentist office without his consent, and give it away to a multimillion dollar private development company to construct a shopping center. Unfortunately for every citizen of Missouri, the city succeeded, in the process changing state law so that now every town and village in Missouri, no matter how small, can use eminent domain to seize people's homes and businesses and give the land to favored private interests.

That inexcusable abuse of authority alone indicates the contempt that Arnold's bureaucrats have for the rights of residents. Yet still it was not enough for them; in the meantime, they called Dr. Tourkakis "selfish" for standing up for his constitutional right of private property, and are now accusing him in letters sent to City voters of lying about how much money they "offered" him for his land—"offered," that is, along with the threat of eminent domain. But it does not matter how much the city "offered" him. As an American and a property owner, Homer Tourkakis had the right to refuse any such offers, and to insist on a fair day in court. The city now claims that for him to exercise his constitutional right to due process of law was "wasteful" and a "delay." Shame on them.

City officials are employees of the public. For them to waste the people's money by attacking Dr. Tourkakis for defending himself in court—as he has a constitutional right to do—is dismal proof of their irresponsibility, lack of professionalism, and contempt for individual rights.

Today, the Pacific Legal Foundation unveiled its brand new website. We hope it'll be more user-friendly and contain much more helpful information for readers, the media, and our supporters. Check it out!

After the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous decision in Kelo v. New London, which allowed government to use eminent domain to seize homes and businesses and give the land to private developers, citizens of Missouri might have hoped that their state courts would understand the need for a restrained interpretation of eminent domain. Unfortunately, the state's highest court chose this week to expand that power even further than the Kelo case did, and in the process, it put every home and business owner, every farmer and church member in Missouri at risk. Now, only an amendment to the state constitution can protect Missourians from the abuse of eminent domain.

Chapman University Law School will be hosting a forum on eminent domain, and on California's Propositions 98 and 99, on Monday, April 14, at 5:30 p.m. PLF's Timothy Sandefur will be among the panelists. More information on the Orange Juice Blog here.

The Pacific Legal Foundation filed a motion for rehearing in the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday, asking the Court to reconsider part of its decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis. The petition asks the Court to clarify what procedural mechanism should be employed when the case proceeds in the trial court. Since the TIF Act (the law under which the city claims its eminent domain authority) does not specify any procedure to be followed, we've asked the Court which of the many sets of rules for eminent domain cases ought to apply. You can read the petition here.